Josephine Hill MAJOR: Communication MINOR: Criminal Justice Experience with Computers/Software:
I can function with a PC, I know a little bit about Mac I guess.
But actually not really. Experience with Art:
I had a drawing phase, but that's about it. I can operate Microsoft Paint. Something Interesting About Me:
I'm working in a major public relations firm, so I'm often like this:
I have a hedgehog
Artistic Interests:Street art interests me, so do murals and landscape pieces. I'm a fan of serious watercolor too!Here are a few! Monday August 2014 5 Principles of New Media: Manovich Examples - Numerical Representation
- Transcoding In Class Example:Part One: Part Two: Part Three: Project Number 1: Part 1: After Effects, or Velvet Revolution By Lev Manovich This article on the new visual 'revolution' that took place between 1993 and 1998 was informative, surprising, and caused me to second guess many examples of visual media presented to me every day. I think the study of media is very interesting, not only because the history itself is exciting and dynamic, but also because not many people examine he history of media - it is rare for me to find articles like this that not only go back and examine media but to also examine it through artistic, political, and a slight autobiographical lens.
Born in 1992, I only examined the media and examples of visual aesthetics that were the most current. As Manovich mentions in his article, the resulting changes to visual art happened too quickly and too "out in the open" for anyone to realize what was happening – I find it interesting that he compared this to many of the Soviet Union satellites and their revolutions. My first reaction after reading the article was surprise after learning how expensive and how hard to get some of these programs and software like PaintBox. Knowing as a graphic designer or artist that you would have to pay thousands of dollars an hour to do the things we can do on our home computers now is astounding.
Find a lot of commonalities between the language describing the new media here and of the Tedtalk that we watched in class. Similar to what Mark Ronson described as an era of music that is ‘recycling’ and reusing old music to create something new and in turn insert you into that narrative, I think that Manovich made a similar point in stating that “the logic of the new visual language is that of remixability” but the difference here is that your integrating different forms of art all together and need to also integrate their techniques, methods, language, and assumptions.
I loved his metaphor of the software After Effects as a sort of “petri” dish for other, more complex art came about using computer animation, live cinematography, graphic design, 2d animation, and typography to create new hybrids that wouldn’t have come about any other way.
Finally, this article touches on a point that I have interesting since I started this class and that the way of thinking about new media as layers. This is something that I continue to struggle with in wrapping my head around but it is very logical. Overall, this piece really opened my eyes to how revolutionary that this time was in creating hybrid visual language.
Questions:
How could you compare what we saw in the Ted talk video with this article? Which do you think came first? And do you think the "remixabilty" of one medium came from inspiration from another?
This article really highlighted the importance of access to technology in order to develop new forms of art. What do you think is the next "photoshop," "after effects" or "paintbox"?
Since most of us were born in the 90's, we were really cognitive of these changes going on with the velvet revolution, but your parents definitely were. What do you think were your parents reaction? grandparents? The Poetics of Augmented Space by Lev Manovich You asked, “What else can be augmented?” While you’re correct in saying that augmentation is an idea or a practice rather than just a collection of technologies. If augmentation was just a collection of technologies, it would not likely impact our daily lives or have such a penetrative presence and effect. In my article, I speak about the effect this concept will have on those such as architects, and how it will challenge their work. Thinking back on it now, I believe that augmented space will affect everyone living in our high tech society. You said that you think that it is “often, it’s not the space that is augmented, but something else,” while the majority of this article spoke upon physical spaces that had been covered by technology such as buildings covered in LCD screens or the NYC Prada store. When speaking about augmented space, I mean exactly that- the space that humans occupy, our environments that surround us. While you missed the understanding of the definition, I think that augmented people, or augmented things are completely possible and are in fact well on their way to becoming developed, but these things all occur within a space that us humans live in and so these augmented things that we have, affect our perception of the environment or space that we are surrounded by. If you take, for example Google Glass, Google Glass is a pair of glasses. A pair of glasses is a physical thing, but when adding technology that allows images to be projected onto the lenses like screens, it becomes an augmented object-an augmented pair of glasses. However, because they are glasses and we put them on our face to make sure we see the world correctly, those projected images are seen in regards to the environment that we are seeing. That, in turn, would make the environment and the space around you augmented space.
Your example of your phone registering that you have been sitting still for a long time and thus it reminds you to stretch your legs, would not be augmented spaces because the environment around you- your office or home- is still completely real. However, I wouldn’t consider your phone telling you to get up augmented reality, because while there is technology involved in the process of you getting up – the data that your phone is using (I assume your heart beat, blood pressure etc. ) are all real and were not created. In your suggestion of the possibilities of augmented humans, augmented perception, augmented content and augmented activities – keep in mind that augmented means overlaying the physical space with dynamic data. Meaning those humans, perceptions, content and activities would have to have some sort of created technological value to them. For example, an augmented human – I believe (in a truly hypothetical and supernatural state) would be somebody who, with the help of a layer of technology, could create different faces, different outfits, or make their body art move. In my article I also mention a handful of other technologies like tangible interfaces, wearable computers, smart object displaying smart behavior or e-paper, these are examples of augmented reality, not augmented space.
Experience with Computers/Software:
I can function with a PC, I know a little bit about Mac I guess.
But actually not really.
Experience with Art:
I had a drawing phase, but that's about it. I can operate Microsoft Paint.
Something Interesting About Me:
Artistic Interests:Street art interests me, so do murals and landscape pieces. I'm a fan of serious watercolor too!Here are a few!
Monday August 2014
5 Principles of New Media: Manovich Examples - Numerical Representation
- Modularity
- Automation
- Variability
- Transcoding
In Class Example:Part One:
Part Two:
Part Three:
Project Number 1:
Part 1:
After Effects, or Velvet Revolution By Lev Manovich
This article on the new visual 'revolution' that took place between 1993 and 1998 was informative, surprising, and caused me to second guess many examples of visual media presented to me every day. I think the study of media is very interesting, not only because the history itself is exciting and dynamic, but also because not many people examine he history of media - it is rare for me to find articles like this that not only go back and examine media but to also examine it through artistic, political, and a slight autobiographical lens.
Born in 1992, I only examined the media and examples of visual aesthetics that were the most current. As Manovich mentions in his article, the resulting changes to visual art happened too quickly and too "out in the open" for anyone to realize what was happening – I find it interesting that he compared this to many of the Soviet Union satellites and their revolutions.
My first reaction after reading the article was surprise after learning how expensive and how hard to get some of these programs and software like PaintBox. Knowing as a graphic designer or artist that you would have to pay thousands of dollars an hour to do the things we can do on our home computers now is astounding.
Find a lot of commonalities between the language describing the new media here and of the Tedtalk that we watched in class. Similar to what Mark Ronson described as an era of music that is ‘recycling’ and reusing old music to create something new and in turn insert you into that narrative, I think that Manovich made a similar point in stating that “the logic of the new visual language is that of remixability” but the difference here is that your integrating different forms of art all together and need to also integrate their techniques, methods, language, and assumptions.
I loved his metaphor of the software After Effects as a sort of “petri” dish for other, more complex art came about using computer animation, live cinematography, graphic design, 2d animation, and typography to create new hybrids that wouldn’t have come about any other way.
Finally, this article touches on a point that I have interesting since I started this class and that the way of thinking about new media as layers. This is something that I continue to struggle with in wrapping my head around but it is very logical. Overall, this piece really opened my eyes to how revolutionary that this time was in creating hybrid visual language.
Questions:
How could you compare what we saw in the Ted talk video with this article? Which do you think came first? And do you think the "remixabilty" of one medium came from inspiration from another?
This article really highlighted the importance of access to technology in order to develop new forms of art. What do you think is the next "photoshop," "after effects" or "paintbox"?
Since most of us were born in the 90's, we were really cognitive of these changes going on with the velvet revolution, but your parents definitely were. What do you think were your parents reaction? grandparents?
The Poetics of Augmented Space by Lev Manovich You asked, “What else can be augmented?” While you’re correct in saying that augmentation is an idea or a practice rather than just a collection of technologies. If augmentation was just a collection of technologies, it would not likely impact our daily lives or have such a penetrative presence and effect. In my article, I speak about the effect this concept will have on those such as architects, and how it will challenge their work. Thinking back on it now, I believe that augmented space will affect everyone living in our high tech society. You said that you think that it is “often, it’s not the space that is augmented, but something else,” while the majority of this article spoke upon physical spaces that had been covered by technology such as buildings covered in LCD screens or the NYC Prada store. When speaking about augmented space, I mean exactly that- the space that humans occupy, our environments that surround us. While you missed the understanding of the definition, I think that augmented people, or augmented things are completely possible and are in fact well on their way to becoming developed, but these things all occur within a space that us humans live in and so these augmented things that we have, affect our perception of the environment or space that we are surrounded by. If you take, for example Google Glass, Google Glass is a pair of glasses. A pair of glasses is a physical thing, but when adding technology that allows images to be projected onto the lenses like screens, it becomes an augmented object-an augmented pair of glasses. However, because they are glasses and we put them on our face to make sure we see the world correctly, those projected images are seen in regards to the environment that we are seeing. That, in turn, would make the environment and the space around you augmented space.
Your example of your phone registering that you have been sitting still for a long time and thus it reminds you to stretch your legs, would not be augmented spaces because the environment around you- your office or home- is still completely real. However, I wouldn’t consider your phone telling you to get up augmented reality, because while there is technology involved in the process of you getting up – the data that your phone is using (I assume your heart beat, blood pressure etc. ) are all real and were not created. In your suggestion of the possibilities of augmented humans, augmented perception, augmented content and augmented activities – keep in mind that augmented means overlaying the physical space with dynamic data. Meaning those humans, perceptions, content and activities would have to have some sort of created technological value to them. For example, an augmented human – I believe (in a truly hypothetical and supernatural state) would be somebody who, with the help of a layer of technology, could create different faces, different outfits, or make their body art move. In my article I also mention a handful of other technologies like tangible interfaces, wearable computers, smart object displaying smart behavior or e-paper, these are examples of augmented reality, not augmented space.